Not sure it would be strictly 'safe' to say that because Sky are pleading protection from revealing the source that this means that there is 'something to hide', or rather that Sky are engaged in hiding it. It is standard practice. A point of principle. If Sky just cave and spill the beans now, no whistleblower will ever want to confide in them again. It's considered 'journalistic integrity'.

There is a potential by-product of this silence depending on the nature of the enquiry. For example, a powerful enough 'court' with a clear determination and interest in investigating could indeed find other ways to ascertain the source without the news organisation giving anything up. For their part Sky could be sticking to principle but be fully aware that the coroner already has the name they're looking for and needs to find other ways to pin the course of events to them publicly. Beyond that, depending on which way the coroner goes with this, MB and Sky could end up looking very bad - a journalist who publishes a protected source on their own authority, without due diligence, and causes actionable harm in the process, will end up bearing the - excuse the pun - Brunt of any and all legal attention in a 'buck stops here' kind of way. Sky's position essentially becomes as a de facto proxy. If what Sky published and the manner in which they became the embodied effect of the dossier is found to be actionable, their only hope of not carrying the can is to say 'we were deceived by...' If they're not prepared to say that, then they carry the can. Numerous cases have proved that even journalists cannot simply say 'I published what I was told, I can't be held accountable if that causes a problem.' Recklessness does not get excused when the mightiest media corps are called to account.

As it stands this action on the part of Newscorp does not mean anything inherently other than that they will stick to standard procedure for a media organisation, and I would strongly suspect the coroner already knows exactly where the dossier came from. Requiring MB/Sky to formally state the name almost certainly will only affect the manner in which the game will be played from here on in. I doubt very much that the coroner would get as far - in cooperation with the police - as beginning to follow the mystery to whatever dark crevice it began in if the ultimate intention was to have the inquiry confounded by predictable use of media protection and then proceed with a mundane verdict. On the part of the coroner, this is certainly a shot across someone's bow.

I would imagine that 'ankles' have been quaking since 'operation troll' went so badly wrong.

I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police. The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named? Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named. What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action. Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

@comperedna wrote:I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

@plebgate wrote:I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police. The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named? Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named. What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action. Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

I agree, especially seeing as Brenda Leyland received death threats etc. and died soon afterward. The whole stalking etc. of BL and her death all sounds very sinister and suspicious.I would think a lawyer would have to be able to obtain any relevant information into her death if BL's family want to take things further, as they would be quite within their right to do so, seeing the serious nature of events that led to her death.

@comperedna wrote:I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

BHH.

"in terms of THAT file, what happened, if you recall was that the FAMILY handed to our team......."

NOT 'supporters' of the McCann's................ although, 'family' ,COULD be 'construed' as 'supporters' i suppose.

[quote="jeanmonroe"][quote="comperedna"]I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?[/quote]

[youtube]Kbp53fvtL3Y[/youtube]

BHH.

"in terms of THAT file, what happened, if you recall was that the FAMILY handed to our team......."

NOT 'supporters' of the McCann's................ although, 'family' ,COULD be 'construed' as 'supporters' i suppose.

Any 'help'?[/quote]

The family of the murdered girl who handed the file in to Leicestershire police?

It would seem that Summers and Swan were also keen to promote the idea of nasty trolls hiding under bridges and being mean to the McCanns as one of the Amazon one star reviewers wrote this:

"I was very concerned by the use of the loaded word ‘haters’ to describe those who doubt the McCanns. Chapters 15 and 16 deal with prominent doubters (my preferred word), and the authors' bias comes through.

For example they mention that the website http://mccannfiles.com set up in 2007 by Nigel Moore has long had a donate button and still does now. Why is this negative? They admit that he, according to press reports, gives the website work his virtual full time attention. Isn’t it reasonable for him to suggest that people who use the mass of information he provides make a voluntary donation towards his running costs?"

As the reviewer noted, the use of a loaded words such as 'haters' is concerning when it is applied to the (vast majority of) people who doubt the McCanns.

So we have a troll-hunting dossier outlining nasty anti-McCanns handed in to police by "the family" (ahem!) and then shortly after this we have the dreadful Summers and Swan book.

Then we have the unedifying spectacle of Martin Brunt doorstepping a completely innocent woman. Who takes her own life shortly afterwards.

Just how low can these pond-dwellers go?

No wonder they generate strong feelings in many people. What's to like about them? Nothing.

But the good news is we have the senior police officer in the clip above confirming that 'the family' handed in the troll dossier to police. And also confirming that the police are reviewing the murder of the missing girl, Madeleine McCann.

@plebgate wrote:I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police. The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named? Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named. What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action. Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

It isn't a case of the information not being able to be obtained by the police. That would only matter if the only aim in the coroner's line of enquiry were to simply obtain the information. The coroner is not, it appears in this case, simply cluelessly asking to be informed. This is a game, in many ways. A power game, full of power plays. Like the case in Portugal, like the damages claim in Lisbon, this isn't just about what information can be obtained to fill in blanks... it's about putting pressure in key places, sending key messages, asserting authority and - in this case - I believe the Coroner will not have been naïve enough to believe that Sky and MB would ever capitulate. Everyone knows that journalists protect their sources. Their reputation for doing so is the only thing that affirms their discretion in being able to handle future 'scoops'. Rather, the mere formality of the Coroner publicly requiring the information on the record - even the very act of instructing the police to make the request for it - is the act of establishing Sky/MB as what American legal movies call 'a hostile witness.' It sets in the mind of the observer that from the outset Sky/MB are being regarded with suspicion, as perpetrators or agents of something nasty, and that they're not cooperating but are smugly pleading a defence of their right not only to silence but to impunity. Be under no illusion, this move is not designed to make Sky/MB look good. Quite the opposite. This, whatever the outcome and its implication for this case, has the potential to pick up the baton from Hackgate and develop a new line of assault against Newscorp, and quite probably play right into the hands of Leveson and, with unfortunate coincidence, Hacked Off. It would appear that someone, somewhere, if not by design certainly by opportunism, is going to make a meal of Rupert.

I would imagine that 'ankles' have been quaking since 'operation troll' went so badly wrong.

-------

Hope so. The hatches seems to have been battened down at Rothley Towers. Not so much as a pip-squeak.

I still don't understand why they targetted Brenda Leyland, though? She lived near the Mcs. I wonder if they knew (of) each other? Did she have some 'insider info' perhaps? Something about nanny Amy Tierney who I think it is said she was tweeting about shortly before her death. Amy was involved in printing out those early pics, apparently. So perhaps she is a 'key' player?

I wonder what was really the cause of Brenda's death? Was she murdered even? The fact that the police say her death is not suspicious leads me to believe that her death is even more suspicious than it looks already.

As is pointed out on the blog below, the twitter comments aimed at Brenda (presumably from someone supporting the TM camp) are far more threatening than anything she ever wrote. Really venomous.

You must be jesting, j.rob. Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven. .

@ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob. Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven. .

Well the old coot is about 84 yrs. old, so i don't think he will be doing too much of that LOL,

'Old coot' he may be, but nevertheless he presented Cherie with Tone's head on a plate and this should serve as a example of what Mr Murdoch is capable of should anyone have the temerity to cross him, or get across one of his wives as the case may be, Joss.

Because if their intention was to portray the McCanns as beleagured victims of 'trolling' it's gone horribly wrong for them and they're desperate to keep their heads below the parapet of Rothley Towers wm?.

@comperedna wrote:I didn't hear the broadcast concerned, if that was where the information came from... but I believe Bernard Hogan-Howe, boss of the Met, spoke of the dossier as having come from supporters of the McCanns. That's a pretty authoratative comment if he made it. Can someone please pipe up and correct me if I am wrong about this?

I thought it was handed in by the family of McCann?

Endorsed by Kate & Gerry no doubt understandably.

I cant see family member taking it upon themselves to do something in the public for the Mcs sake without consulting and obtaining their sanction first.

@plebgate wrote:I, also, do not understand why the info. cannot be obtained from the police. The dossier was given first to the police and then to Sky and apparently, according to BHH the police seem to know who gave the dossier to them.

Why should the dossier compiler not be named? Everyone on the list should be able to demand that their accuser/s be named. What about their human rights?

It may be that at some future point Brenda's family take civil action. Would the police have to give that info. to any solicitors acting for the family if this should happen?

It isn't a case of the information not being able to be obtained by the police. That would only matter if the only aim in the coroner's line of enquiry were to simply obtain the information. The coroner is not, it appears in this case, simply cluelessly asking to be informed. This is a game, in many ways. A power game, full of power plays. Like the case in Portugal, like the damages claim in Lisbon, this isn't just about what information can be obtained to fill in blanks... it's about putting pressure in key places, sending key messages, asserting authority and - in this case - I believe the Coroner will not have been naïve enough to believe that Sky and MB would ever capitulate. Everyone knows that journalists protect their sources. Their reputation for doing so is the only thing that affirms their discretion in being able to handle future 'scoops'. Rather, the mere formality of the Coroner publicly requiring the information on the record - even the very act of instructing the police to make the request for it - is the act of establishing Sky/MB as what American legal movies call 'a hostile witness.' It sets in the mind of the observer that from the outset Sky/MB are being regarded with suspicion, as perpetrators or agents of something nasty, and that they're not cooperating but are smugly pleading a defence of their right not only to silence but to impunity. Be under no illusion, this move is not designed to make Sky/MB look good. Quite the opposite. This, whatever the outcome and its implication for this case, has the potential to pick up the baton from Hackgate and develop a new line of assault against Newscorp, and quite probably play right into the hands of Leveson and, with unfortunate coincidence, Hacked Off. It would appear that someone, somewhere, if not by design certainly by opportunism, is going to make a meal of Rupert.

Hacked off must surely regret allowing a platform for the McCanns? Whereas others among the campaigners appear to be genuine victims of press misrepresentation, phone hacking and false accusations, they, imo, are not. The wolves in sheep's clothing, perhaps?

@ultimaThule wrote:'Old coot' he may be, but nevertheless he presented Cherie with Tone's head on a plate and this should serve as a example of what Mr Murdoch is capable of should anyone have the temerity to cross him, or get across one of his wives as the case may be, Joss.

Well be that as it may, i lump politicians & MSM all into the same category. They are just all the same arm of the same beast, all part of what is wrong in the world IMO. Greed & self appointed power, and we all fall for the trickery & treachery against humanity because we are mostly dumbed down, and want to be controlled, otherwise things would be very different.

@ultimaThule wrote:You must be jesting, j.rob. Rupert is an immensely rich and powerful kingmaker and anyone who attempts to make a meal out of him will find their own head served on a platter before they've had a chance to warm the oven. .

UltimaThule,

The one thing you're underestimating is that there are no shortage of immensely rich and powerful kingmakers in the world, not merely in media but in other fields. There is simply no precedent for believing that any one individual would ever become so almighty as to be untouchable. Even the most powerful and brutal of mafia godfathers inspire no shortage of would-be rivals. When you've climbed as high as you can go in a pyramid of power, and your way up is blocked by a bigger bully, that frustration has a tendency of making the ruthless ever more determined to topple the old man at the top of the heap.

Eddie and Keela alerted to items and places concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other items or places.

According to Eddie and Keela, the body of Madeleine McCann lay lifeless behind the sofa in Apartment 5a, clinging to the only thing from which she could derive any comfort; a soft toy called 'Cuddle cat'.

Kate's book 'madeleine', Page 219: "Did they really believe that a dog could smell the 'odour of death' three months later from a body that had been so swiftly removed?"

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

John McCann:"This was terrible for them, Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: "Maddy's jammies, where is Maddy?"Martin Roberts:"If Madeleine's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job

Death Toll in McCann Case

Gerry McCann called for an example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014 after a 'Dossier' was handed in to Police by McCann supporters. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room the next day. Brenda paid the price.

Colin Shalke died suddenly in mysterious circumstances with a significant amount of morphine in his system. At the Inquest the coroner said there was no evidence as to how he had come to take morphine, and no needle mark was found.

Ex-Met DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC1's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window' of opportunity' from 3 mins to 45 mins, in accordance with their remit, to allow the staged abduction to happen.

Dr Gonçalo Amaral, retired PJ Coordinator: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened, they don't need to investigate anything. When MI5 opens their files, then we will know the truth."

Tracey Kandohla: "A McCann pal told The Sun Online: "Some of the savings have been siphoned off from the Find Maddie Fund into a fixed asset account, which financial experts have advised them to do. It can be used for purchases like buying a house or building equipment."

The McCanns, Operation Grange and the BBC are all working towards one goal - to make us keep looking at what happened (or didn't happen) on 3rd May, instead of looking at what happened days earlier. There is NO evidence of an abduction. Smithman is ALL they have got. Without that, they are sunk. No wonder Operation Grange clings on to Smithman...